“Those [arbitration] issues do not go to the question presented,” Levy said.
During briefing, Halliburton spotlighted the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Badgerow v. Walters, which curtailed the ability of courts to find a basis for jurisdiction when asked to vacate arbitration awards. On Tuesday, while Levy was still delivering his argument, Justice Elena Kagan said Waetzig would “have a tough row to hoe on the Badgerow question,” but she added, it “doesn’t seem to be the jurisdictional question that’s in front of us.”
Despite those comments, Matthew D. McGill of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, who represents Halliburton, used the very first words of his argument Tuesday to insist that Waetzig’s arbitration challenge is doomed by Badgerow and earlier precedent.
“I want to start with the question of jurisdiction. We know from Badgerow that a … motion to vacate under the Federal Arbitration Act requires its own basis for federal jurisdiction,” McGill said. “Rule 60 can’t supply it, and that was the only basis for jurisdiction ever presented below. That’s the argument that there’s no jurisdiction here.”
